CBNNews.com - CROSSROADS BIBLE COLLEGE, Ind. - Darwin's book on human evolution, The Descent of Man, revealed him as what John West calls "a virulent racist."

"He did write extensively about how evolution by natural selection creates unequal races, and that in the evolutionary scheme of things, blacks are the closest to apes," he explained. West is the author of Darwin Day in America.

"It's not just residual racism," he added. "He's using his scientific theory as a justification for racism and countless scientists after Darwin latched on to that."

Hosea Baxter directs reconciliation ministries at Crossroads Bible College. He says racism had always been around, but Darwin gave it an air of scientific legitimacy.

"Darwinism is one of the most dangerous ideas in the world today," Baxter claimed.

"Blacks and Native Americans would be portrayed as savages, ignorant or people who could not be civilized [and had] no hope of being civilized," he added.

Making Racism 'Popular'

Baxter works with Charles Ware. He and Ken Ham co-authored Darwin's Plantation: Evolution's Racist Roots. They contend Darwin did more than anyone else to popularize racism.

On the last page of his book, Darwin expressed the opinion that he would rather be descended from a monkey than from a "savage."

In describing those with darker skin, he often used words like "savage," "low" and "degraded" to describe Native Americans, pygmies and almost every ethnic group whose physical appearance and culture differed from his own. In his work, pygmies have been compared to "lower organisms."

One professor in the 1880s wrote, "I consider the negro to be a lower species of man and cannot make up my mind to look upon him as 'a man and a brother,' for the gorilla would then also have to be admitted into the family."

"Since blacks were somewhere in the evolutionary scale between apes and men, they did not have souls," Ware explained. "And since they didn't have souls, some argued, 'We don't even have to preach the gospel to them.'"

Building a 'Better Breed'

Slavery and segregation kept the races apart, but maybe even more dangerous was how Darwin's theories led to active eugenics.

"[It's] the idea of trying to breed a better human being, often by trying to get the people considered defective not to be able to breed or have children," Baxter explained. "And this was a worldwide phenomenon but the U.S. really pressed it further than anyone else until Nazi Germany."

It led to the forced sterilization of 70,000 Americans, many of them blacks.

Then along came Margaret Sanger, founder of what would become Planned Parenthood.

"Margaret Sanger was very Darwinian and very much inspired by this overall idea," Ware said.

"Part of the impetus behind abortion was to annihilate the black race," Baxter added.

The 'Concern' of Interracial Marriage

There were also many laws to keep blacks from marrying whites. Baxter says lawmakers were made afraid by arguments in books like 1907's Race Mongrels.

"If we don't create this separation of the races, we're going to create this mongol race, this race of, say, retards," Baxter said of the book's content.

But Ware, the father of four interracial children, says that fear was ridiculous.

Ware says he has dedicated his life and his ministry to undoing the damage of racism and "bringing red, yellow, black and white together based on biblical principle."

In Indianapolis, Ind., Ware heads Crossroads Bible, a small college, but one with big ideas about racial reconciliation.

It starts with showing what the Bible says about race -- a direct contradiction of Darwinism:

"From one man he made every nation of men." (Acts 17:26, NIV)

"Eve...was the mother of all the living." (Genesis 3:20, New American Standard)

"These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated." (Genesis 9:19, New American Standard)

Race Only 'Skin Deep'

In their book, Ware and Ham point out modern genetics shows racial differences are in reality little more than skin-deep, and quote a scientist who says race is "a social construct...and it has no basic biological reality."

Crossroads Bible asks its students to push hard across race barriers.

"Get over the fear of failure, get over the fear of rejection," Ware urged. "We need to be intentional. We need to find people, meet people, talk to people."

"And we've got to figure out how to carry out Matthew 28:19-20," he added. "How do we make disciples of all...groups?"

Christians like Ware hope to convince the church to reject Darwinian thought and accept what the Bible says: there's only one race, the human race, and we have to love it in all its diversity.

I also notice Ware left out some parts of the Bible that have been used to justify racism and slavery.

Remember, Darwin also said eugenics won’t work basically because it is immoral, and such immorality would weaken a society more than it could hope to gain through eugenics. The leaders of the eugenics movement, and Discovery Institute shills, conveniently ignored this.

8
posted on 02/26/2009 8:41:08 PM PST
by antiRepublicrat
(Sacred cows make the best hamburger.)

You disagree with me that this crap article was just posted the other day by GGG?

(Of course I know that’s not what you mean, but that’s what you said.)

Evidence for what? That Charles Darwin is responsible for all racism and eugenics of the world? Because neither existed before 1859? Because magically now some idiot wrote some dumb book accusing evolution of being responsible and other dumb people eat it up, looking for something - anything - to hold on to in the face of the scientific evidence for evolution?

Note: this is yet another non-scientific creationist rant that does nothing to diminish current scientific understanding.

Also Note: Even if Charles Darwin ate black people for breakfast and tortured Jews for recreation, his theory is still quite impressive and correct. “But you probably don’t care.”

Darwinism doesn’t absolutely require its adherents to be racist, but it has repeatedly tended that way.

Slavery was common in the ancient world, but it was a question of vanquishing your enemies, not of different races that were superior and inferior. “Race” was mostly a scientific theory of the nineteent century, and it fit right in with evolution.

It is common for Darwinists to distinguish themselves from Social Darwinists. But Social Darwinists certainly never saw it that way.

In the nineteenth century, “primitive” didn’t just mean culturally inferior. It also meant racially inferior.

Darwinists still automatically tend to think in those terms. If someone expresses religious beliefs, it means that he is backward, undeveloped, crude, not as far evolved up the tree of life as the superior Darwinists.

I suggest that you read, or re-read the Descent of Man. It is an example of a man making poor use of his own scientific work. Origin of Species was based on a lot of grunt work, which made his conclusions persuasive. But the second book does not rise to the same level, is based more on prejuice than observation, and the language IS racist.

When you can prove that Margret Sanger didn't use evolution to further eugenics and Hitler didn't use evolution to prove blacks and Jews were under developed and abortion uses the theory that babies aren't humans until you judge them to be, then maybe evolution is just a benign theory that we could just agree to disagree with.

Until then, it propagates the theory that people are just animals that were lucky enough to get oposable thumbs so we could dominate the food chain. I tend to believe I was designed to look like the Creator and was blessed by Him to be his most prized creation. As long as you are just another animal, I should be able to shoot you down like a dog and sleep well at night because you just are advanced pond scum in reality. If you, on the other hand are God's creation that he loves, the I should tremble in fear that I have harmed you and will suffer a great price. Your world kills 50 million babies, gasses millions in war, murders people for $5 in their pocket, and locks people in gulags to work till you die.

If humans are just animals, what in the world are we waiting for? We need to nuke some ragheads, send a few warheads to China, Venezuela, Cuba, N. Korea, and then see if anybody else says a peep about it. We could be king of the world if all we have to do is terminate some primates to fix our problems. Humm, maybe we have a conscience for whatever reason and give value to all people. Your belief system has dire consequences and that is the basis of the argument, not some obscure scientist writing a paper for a government grant money to keep from getting real work.

A dog isn't guilty or innocent, it's just a dog. You have no value if you are just accidental pond scum and there is no Creator.

Race was mostly a scientific theory of the nineteenth century, and it fit right in with evolution.

I question this. If by the term "race" you are referring to the realization by one group noticing, and capitalizing on, those different from themselves in language, physical features,etc. than "race" has been a factor for just about forever, and found in every place inhabited by man.

As to "race" being a scientific theory, I'm not sure what you mean. Does it mean human curiosity about why humans come in the endless variety they do? Or why some societies ("race") seemed eternally becalmed in, for example, the hunter-gather stage of development? Is it the fear that in doing so it would cause/encourage one group to consider itself superior to the other(s)? Again, that is hardly a 19th century development.

22
posted on 02/26/2009 10:48:57 PM PST
by yankeedame
("Oh, I can take it but I'd much rather dish it out.")

The term “race” as used in biology can have a different meaning than when used in everyday speech. It means subspecies. Thus there are races of flowers, races of dogs, etc. The original subtitle of Darwin’s first book (the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life) is often misinterpreted by laymen to be a reference to humans and therefore an affront to decency. It is neither.

Darwin was an ardent abolitionist who opposed forced eugenics. This article quotes him selectively and completely out of context.

I still have yet to meet a Darwin critic here who can define the word evolution.

I'll tell you what “race” means. I'm 57 years old and was taught in public school that blacks were inferior to whites in class by a public school teacher from a public school biology textbook. I grew up with black water fountains, blacks in the balconies of the movie houses, and blacks had their own swimming pools and schools. I was taught evolution. Darwinian evolution. I have some encyclopedia's in my library that will attest the same thing in no uncertain scientific terms. The only reason I keep them is to show people how “science” has changed over the years.

Almost every year evolution is re defined to some new cockamamie idea that explains why they were mistaken last year. I recently wrote a post about a whale allegedly evolving into a cow and was promptly pooh poohed and sent to a dozen or so websites that said these weren't really ever taught as whale into cows, but had been misinterpreted by the ID’s to make the evo’s look silly. Well, the discovery channel has on, right now, a series called “Morphed”. Guess where they say cows come from?

Get a half dozen evo's in different rooms and have them explain evolution to you and you will get 12 answers. Then they swear they all agree. They think they can draw a picture of some animal morphing into something else and that proves they are correct.

If you cut through all the clap trap, what you find is a rebellious person that doesn't want to believe they will answer to an angry God. It boils down to a person making themselves into gods and denying their Creator. That is why it is so tempting to use it for an excuse for murder and hate. We can argue till the cows come home about so and so scientist and this and that discovery, but the truth is, no one will be able to prove any of it. Evolution is a religion with less proof than my religion. It is a mathematical impossibility to have evolved from nothing. When something is impossible, it's time to move on to something else. If you don't want to believe in God, that's fine, but evolution is dead.

BobS - 1:21AM: I have yet to get an answer to my challenge to wattajoke.

Yeah, I must've been really stumped. Or sleeping.

BobS - I gave a direct challenge to whattajoke in my post #18. Lets see if he accepts my challenge. I have 10-1 odds layed out that he wont accept the challenge.

LOL. You want to talk about unanswered challenges? In just the last few days I have asked very simple, very direct questions of FR's leading creationists that could be answered in a few sentences and yet, none of them have bothered. Not baiting questions at all; very simple questions. But anyway back to your post 18...

I believe you should be forced out of your college dorm and be made to forcibly meet people people in their own countries.

Is that the "challenge?" Okay. I graduated college in 1985. In that time, I've been to exactly 4 foreign countries (5 if you included Canada.) I met plenty of people in those countries.

And ask them of what they think of your ideas and defend them right there. Across ~three civilisations. Pick your your places.

By "your ideas" I assume you mean... actually I don't know what you mean. If it's plain old evolutionary theory, that's hardly MY idea, but rather the accepted premise of biology of 99.9% of biologists.

If you mean for me to ask them if Darwin is somehow responsible for all Eugenics programs, racism, and the holocaust, well... that's a conversation that is just too stupid to have. On another thread, a particularly virulent creationist who has the tagline "Evolution is Satanism" and reminds us all that all science is satanic and scientists will burn in hell (etc) also claimed that WWI and WWII were caused by Charles Darwin's theory. So you see, I get tired of that whole "argument."

As for your challenge, I suppose you'll get your 10-1 odds. As if I"m going to tell my wife and kid that I have to go fly somewhere to discuss a FR thread with a guy in Zimbabwe.

Get a half dozen evo's in different rooms and have them explain evolution to you and you will get 12 answers. Then they swear they all agree. They think they can draw a picture of some animal morphing into something else and that proves they are correct.

"Evo's" are also called "Scientists." Your red herring is interesting, but probably wrong. Oh sure, there are levels of defining evolution, but they all boil down to "A change in allele frequencies through time." I think you'd be surprised, then, at the amazing consistency of the fossil record and DNA and the phylogenic tree. I know your creationist sources tell you otherwise, but it's true. You've been lied to. A lot.

Now, can we also get a half dozen creationists in a room to have them define creationism? Say... a YEC, an OEC, an IDer, an IC'er, a theologic evolutionist, a muslim, an Australian Aborigine, a Polynesian, some indigenous guy from the Andes, one of those tall skinny tribesmen from Ethiopia, a Catholic, and an an Inuit.

Have them each write their definition of creationism.

See the problem? (Of course you don't, because 11 of them are simply "wrong" in your eyes. Which is correct, of course, except that 1 more will be incorrect in reality. Scientists agree on evolution.

I suggest you read it, because while Darwin played with the idea of applying natural selection to humans, he dismissed it as immoral (not “sympathetic”), stating that the sympathetic society will be the stronger one and thus win out over the society that isn’t. Thus Darwin’s belief is that eugenics will harm a society. Galton is the one you should be looking at.

“The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.”

27
posted on 02/27/2009 5:39:33 AM PST
by antiRepublicrat
(Sacred cows make the best hamburger.)

Darwin also said eugenics wont work basically because it is immoral, and such immorality would weaken a society more than it could hope to gain through eugenics.

More evidence of Darwin's irrational rationalism doesn't help matters. His naturalistic creation myth cannot explain or account for the emergence of morality itself. If his naturalistic suppositions and speculations actually represented the history of the world there would be no basis for condemnation of racism or eugenics in the first place.

People tend to be tribal, or to consider others as “different” from their own people. But that is rather different from the “scientific” theories of “race,” which were not fully developed until the nineteenth century.

Thus, for instance, the Greeks considered everyone else to be barbarians (they didn’t speak Greek, and it sounded as if they were saying “barbarbar...”). In India, there was a caste system, but that was based on religion and lineage, not race as such.

The Chinese and the Japanese each consider themselves to be the only real people. And so forth. But again, it’s not race as such.

The Navajos and the Zunis live close together in the Southwest, but their cultures and customs are completely different, and they have different origin stories. Zunis like to live closely packed together and Navajos like to live in isolation. Yet a scientist would say they are both Indians, and racially connected.

It’s the “scientific” angle that distinguishes race from tribe or people or class or lineage or language group.

His naturalistic creation myth cannot explain or account for the emergence of morality itself.

Man thinks, man groups in societies at a much higher level than any other species on Earth. Because of this other things became even more important than pure physical traits as man found strength in cohesiveness is much more powerful than strength in physical form. For example, in the animal world the old and infirm are killed. Human societies can continue to receive value from the old and infirm because they can contribute to society in non-physical ways. Stephen Hawking would have been offed long ago in a eugenics-driven society.

I can try to find another quote for you that explains it more concisely. Basically he said that a sympathetic society will be more cohesive, will look out for all in it. Because of this every person in the society has allegiance to whole and will fight as one to protect it. This society will be selected over another society that may be physically superior individually but has no sympathy, one that kills imperfect children, that sterilizes its unwanted. They will die out in the long run.

With a sympathetic society the whole is truly greater than the sum of its parts, not so with an unsympathetic one. Darwin makes the perfect argument against eugenics.

30
posted on 02/27/2009 9:11:46 AM PST
by antiRepublicrat
(Sacred cows make the best hamburger.)

Ah. But again, that assumes that you belong to a “society.” In the nineteenth century, that meant you were, for instance, a member of the Celtic/AngloSaxon/Norman amalgamation native to England. The Irish tended to be regarded as “other.” And only Oxford-educated African or Indian gentleman had the slightest chance to be considered part of the society.

Therefore, the implication was that European societies were superior to African, for example, because Africans had a regretable tendency to fight tribal wars and enslave one another.

In other words, maybe Bushmen or Blacks were inferior genetically, maybe they were inferior culturally. More likely a combination of both. In any case, they were inferior, in the Darwinian view.

It’s a bit of a silly site, but the quotes are genuine enough, and one of them even touches specifically on the social aspect of evolution that you mention. (The negro race is less fully developed than whites because they take pleasure in such tings as shrinking and wearing pieces of their enemies, and think it’s noble to commit suicide.)

"If you mean for me to ask them if Darwin is somehow responsible for all Eugenics programs, racism, and the holocaust, well... that's a conversation that is just too stupid to have."

I am not a creationist. Just go to some other countries and meet people that have in the recent past been through hell and talk about what you believe in. I lived overseas and know your personal beliefs in science are rejected. They saw the reality of what Darwin represents after enduring the results.

I'm a uW engineer and know that God exists. There is no way I can be allowed to do the math without being allowed to. Consiousness is bestowed upon us by God. What we do with it is our own free choice. This is what seperates humans from any other life form on the planet.

Therefore, the implication was that European societies were superior to African, for example, because Africans had a regretable tendency to fight tribal wars and enslave one another.

Not sympathetic, thus inferior.

In other words, maybe Bushmen or Blacks were inferior genetically, maybe they were inferior culturally. More likely a combination of both. In any case, they were inferior, in the Darwinian view.

In the context of eugenics, they would be inferior as a society if they were not "sympathetic" regardless of what natural selection did for their physical form. Darwin viewed European Christian society as the most sympathetic, and thus superior to them. Eugenics removes the sympathy of the society that Darwin thought made whites (his European Christian society) strong, making it inferior.

Darwin's argument is also a very good one against abortion. A society that kills its most defenseless cannot be called sympathetic, and thus will fall to other more sympathetic societies.

35
posted on 02/27/2009 11:03:04 AM PST
by antiRepublicrat
(Sacred cows make the best hamburger.)

Well, it does at least raise some interesting issues. Unless one is an idiot multiculturalist, it has to be admitted that some peoples appear to be more admirable than others. Is this genetic or cultural? Or the fault of the leaders of these societies?

I certainly don’t think that all religions, cultures, peoples are equally admirable and never to be judged for their faults.

Yet some of the very worst crimes have been committed by what appear to be the most advanced peoples. Hitler and the Germans were one instance. Mao and the Chinese were another. Then there was Robespierre and the French Terror.

... a sympathetic society will be more cohesive, will look out for all in it. Because of this every person in the society has allegiance to whole and will fight as one to protect it. This society will be selected over another society that may be physically superior individually but has no sympathy, one that kills imperfect children, that sterilizes its unwanted. They will die out in the long run.

So what? You're describing to me some supposed process of historical development, not how things "ought" to be. Is there some moral obligation for society to survive? How do you derive actual moral obligation from a mere description of animal behavior conditioned by the environment for survival? All Darwin gave you was a descriptive account of environmental selection of certain behaviors that tend to conserve species, which tells you nothing about why things ought to be that way.

With a sympathetic society the whole is truly greater than the sum of its parts, not so with an unsympathetic one. Darwin makes the perfect argument against eugenics.

Why should anybody feel obligated to obey a blind, impersonal evolutionary force? And how can a physical force or power or an effect of physical forces, such as natural selection, be "sympathetic"? Is there some material force of nature that obligates a whole to be greater than the sum of it's parts? The insurrmountable problem you will continually run up against is that you cannot derive an "ought" merely from what is, by reason alone. Darwinism does not make any argument against eugenics at all because if it is taken to its logical conclusion it eviscerates any foundation for morality.

All Darwin gave you was a descriptive account of environmental selection of certain behaviors that tend to conserve species, which tells you nothing about why things ought to be that way.

Now you're arguing the validity of his views, which isn't the subject.

How do you derive actual moral obligation from a mere description of animal behavior conditioned by the environment for survival?

These were observations of what makes a human society powerful vs. simple genetics. Darwin was showing how his theory of physical natural selection at animal level does not apply to human society, yet those in favor of eugenics ignored him, and still his enemies blame him for the views of the eugenicists.

Darwinism does not make any argument against eugenics at all because if it is taken to its logical conclusion it eviscerates any foundation for morality.

You are again changing the subject to the origin of morality. In this sense what makes for a sympathetic society, a society that will be stronger and longer-lasting than those around it, is the foundation of morality. These rules were later written into various religions as absolute morality.

I don't suppose you've noticed that Christians, who have one of the best sets of moral laws in the world, dominate this world. Muslims are a freak, as they dwindled into irrelevancy, their societies dying out, until it turned out the horrid places they settled (the places the stronger societies didn't want anyway for the most part) were rich in valuable natural resources. That accident of geography upset the natural order according to Darwin, which is that unsympathetic societies will die out.

Couple that with many Christian societies becoming quite unsympathetic, as you see with the prevalence of abortion, not taking care of our elderly, etc., and you see how Christian power has declined.

38
posted on 02/27/2009 12:25:32 PM PST
by antiRepublicrat
(Sacred cows make the best hamburger.)

How am I changing the subject when it is Darwin himself who attempts to give a biological explanation for man's moral faculties in chapters four and five of The Descent of Man?

In this sense what makes for a sympathetic society, a society that will be stronger and longer-lasting than those around it, is the foundation of morality.

As per Hume, It is invalid to derive "ought" from "is." No ethical principle can be legitimately founded on a fact of nature, so biological principles cannot be translated into moral imperatives. My point is that Darwin's insistence on the continuity of man and animals vitiates any foundation or justification for his own transcendent ethical pronouncements, e.g., "happiness is an essential part of the general good." in chapter 21 of the book. His premises are self-defeating.

As Thomas Huxley put it,

The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before.

You still think physical when it is about man's social interaction. We can think and feel, so the basics don't apply.

A foundation devoid of ethical content is no foundation at all.

And ethical is what works best with man's interaction as a society. As I said, religious ethics and morality are simply what man had already figured out codified into religion, so religious ethics and morality have no extra standing above anything Darwin would say.

40
posted on 02/28/2009 7:56:30 AM PST
by antiRepublicrat
(Sacred cows make the best hamburger.)

You still think physical when it is about man's social interaction. We can think and feel, so the basics don't apply.

If 'nature' is all there is, how can the 'basics' of matter in motion not apply? What else is there? Naturalistic assumptions will not permit anything other than the basics of particles of matter and energy. Darwinism insists on thoroughly naturalistic explanations based on material causes, doesn't it? Since naturalism assumes that everything in existence is the result of natural causes, that includes the chemical fizz you refer to as thoughts and feelings.

And ethical is what works best with man's interaction as a society.

Darwin purported to provide a naturalistic explanation for the emergence of morality. A claim of what is "best" assumes a moral standard by which society can be judged, which assumes the very thing in question. Morality cannot be explained simply by positing a prior moral rule since morality is what is supposed to be accounted for in the first place.

If 'nature' is all there is, how can the 'basics' of matter in motion not apply? What else is there?

It is possible that such behavior is genetic, as more sympathetic societies passed on their genes because they were more successful. I am talking about how the eugenicists think only of physical traits, trying to "improve" the race by weeding out what they think is undesirable. What they don't realize is that their very actions are undesirable according to Darwin.

Both Darwin and Christianity agree on the subject, in opposition to the eugenicists. No surprise since Darwin was originally Christian.

Morality cannot be explained simply by positing a prior moral rule since morality is what is supposed to be accounted for in the first place.

Concepts of morality grew from what worked best for a society. They kind of noticed that murder did not make for a cohesive society, so it gets outlawed, in tribal rules and later in religion when that developed beyond "Ogg, Sun God angry" and into a mechanism for enforcing societal rules.

42
posted on 03/01/2009 7:19:34 AM PST
by antiRepublicrat
(Sacred cows make the best hamburger.)

It is possible that such behavior is genetic, as more sympathetic societies passed on their genes because they were more successful.

There are moral and immoral genes?

I am talking about how the eugenicists think only of physical traits, trying to "improve" the race by weeding out what they think is undesirable. What they don't realize is that their very actions are undesirable according to Darwin.

Ok. The actions of eugenicists are undesirable according to Darwin. So what? The actions of eugenicists are desirable according to eugenicists. Desirability is in the eye of the beholder. Desirability does not equal morality. If you're going to insist on completely naturalistic explanations based on material causes, then material causes are all you have. The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist."

None of Darwins's biological principles can be translated into moral imperatives. What Darwin did with his completely naturalistic presuppositions is destroy the bridge he needed to cross to reach his moral judgments.

Both Darwin and Christianity agree on the subject, in opposition to the eugenicists. No surprise since Darwin was originally Christian.

Darwin could not remain thoroughly consistent with his own naturalistic premises, so he tacitly borrowed from the Christian world view with its transcendent moral standard to arrive at his moral judgments. He just never acknowledged the debt.

You're still not getting it. What we call moral is what makes a society more cohesive. We already know some base actions are in our DNA, like a baby naturally going for the nipple, so its possible that higher tendencies might be passed along.

The actions of eugenicists are undesirable according to Darwin. So what? The actions of eugenicists are desirable according to eugenicists.

But the context here is an attack on Darwin because of what the eugenicists believe. I think you've about admitted such attacks are unfair without realizing it.

Is there an obligation to do "what's best for a society"?

Does religion give such an obligation?

44
posted on 03/01/2009 10:08:50 PM PST
by antiRepublicrat
(Sacred cows make the best hamburger.)

You're still not getting it. What we call moral is what makes a society more cohesive. We already know some base actions are in our DNA, like a baby naturally going for the nipple, so its possible that higher tendencies might be passed along.

I will let the reader judge who is missing whose point, My point, reiterated in every post here, is that what you call morality is not morality at all, but merely descriptive accounts of environmental selection of certain behaviors that tend to conserve species, which tells you nothing about why things ought to be that way. Morality is about "ought", not about what merely "is". You also can't by reason alone derive ethical principle from a mere fact of nature.

You can't appeal to "higher tendencies" without justifying the leap because under a naturalistic Darwinian premise matter in motion is all you have to work with; concatenations of atoms and molecules are not directed or purposeful, and the "higher tendencies" is what you being asked to account for in the first place. You are limited by your premise to thouroughly naturalistic explanations based on material causes.

But the context here is an attack on Darwin because of what the eugenicists believe. I think you've about admitted such attacks are unfair without realizing it.

No, here I simply accepted your premise for the sake of argument, not because I think it is entirely factual. My point is that Darwin had no foundation for any of his ethical judgments. By all accounts Darwin was personally a kindly man, but his naturalism destroys any possibility of a coherent account of morality.

.Does religion give such an obligation?

If you regard religion as man-made, i.e., having emerged along with man from the primordial slime, then no. In that case it would be just as arbitrary and subjective as your utilitarian ethic.

My point, reiterated in every post here, is that what you call morality is not morality at all, but merely descriptive accounts of environmental selection of certain behaviors that tend to conserve species

We are playing dictionary games. Call it what you want, but morality is a reflection of that.

You are limited by your premise to thouroughly naturalistic explanations based on material causes.

The causes are how we interact socially.

No, here I simply accepted your premise for the sake of argument, not because I think it is entirely factual. My point is that Darwin had no foundation for any of his ethical judgments.

The naturalistic view was his foundation. It is the same foundation that religious ethics and morality is built upon, although religions don't like to credit the source.

In that case it would be just as arbitrary and subjective as your utilitarian ethic.

It is arbitrary and subjective. Long ago some people founded a religion, including in it the societal mores of the time. They later wrote these mores as laws into the religion's founding documents. That is your arbitrary and subjective starting point.

Notice how the Bible doesn't condemn slavery? That's because slavery was normal and accepted in the society of the time. I don't think slavery is moral or ethical, but that's because I live in a post-slavery society. You do have the rare person who comes along and introduces new ideas on how society could function better than it did before, and they'll be accepted and perpetuated if they actually work in society. Jesus had some great ideas, and that's why Christianity lasted and prospered. Hitler had some ideas on how to make society better, but they didn't last very long. In fact, the more sympathetic societies smacked him down quite hard. Stalin and Lenin had some ideas too, and the USSR is gone while we're still here.

46
posted on 03/02/2009 8:29:13 AM PST
by antiRepublicrat
(Sacred cows make the best hamburger.)

We are playing dictionary games. Call it what you want, but morality is a reflection of that.

Morality, as I am using the term, means a system of rules and propositions correctly describing how one should and should not act. Morality is prescriptive, not merely descriptive. It is objective, and by objective I mean that moral principles are valid, binding, and true independently of whether any of us think, feel, or believe them to be so. Morality says what ought to be, not merely what is.

The naturalistic view was his foundation. It is the same foundation that religious ethics and morality is built upon, although religions don't like to credit the source.

If what you are calling 'morality' resulted from natural biological selection, and nothing else, the logical implication of your presupposition is that moral beliefs are products of a process that is entirely independent of their truth and while they might happen to be true, you have no reason at all for thinking that they are. As there is no fact about the world that can vindicate the inescapable authority that moral judgments purport to have, you have, in terms of your own worldview no justification for endorsing ANY moral proposition at all. To do so, as Darwin did, and as you have done, is irrational.

I happen to believe Darwin was a racist. That does not imply anything about the truth or falsehood of his theories. Alfred Russel Wallace, who conceived natural selection independently, was an anti-racist. So I guess evolution is false because Darwin was a racist, and it is true because Wallace was anti-racist.

Think people.

We wouldn’t refute Jefferson by pointing out he owned slaves. We wouldn’t refute the theories of Newton by pointing out he was a religious crackpot. Say what you want about Darwin, but please, use some basic logic.

What is best for the cohesiveness of a society is also an "ought to be" because just like religious morality (as derived from societal mores), it is also not universally followed -- see the current subject of eugenics.

As there is no fact about the world that can vindicate the inescapable authority that moral judgments purport to have, you have, in terms of your own worldview no justification for endorsing ANY moral proposition at all.

Why not? It's what has been learned over thousands of years of civilization. Religious morality is built upon this rock, so can offer no more validity other than someone telling you a deity said it is so.

49
posted on 03/02/2009 9:57:00 AM PST
by antiRepublicrat
(Sacred cows make the best hamburger.)

What is best for the cohesiveness of a society is also an "ought to be" because just like religious morality (as derived from societal mores), it is also not universally followed -- see the current subject of eugenics.

Good can be taken to be what is best for the cohesiveness of a society only if it is antecedently the case that cohesiveness of a society is itself "good." You are still assuming what you must prove.

The reason that a naturalistic worldview offers no justification for endorsing ANY moral proposition at all is that you have to commit the naturalistic fallacy, or Hume's rule against deriving an "ought" from an "is" to do so. Reason, logic, and rationality can tell you what to do to achieve a particular end, but it cannot tell you what end you ought to achieve in the first place.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.